This amicus brief was filed in Alawieh v. Mullin, a case challenging the government’s use of expedited removal against Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a physician with deep ties to the United States who was removed in March 2025 after returning from brief travel abroad.
The limitations on judicial review of expedited removal impact noncitizens across the United States in a wide range of factual and legal circumstances. The Council’s brief highlights the grave consequences imposed on noncitizens, their families and the broader community by this administration’s expanded expedited removal scheme, particularly where noncitizens subject to expedited removal are denied meaningful habeas review.
Background
Dr. Alawieh is a transplant nephrologist who trained and worked lawfully in the United States for nearly seven years. She built a life and career treating patients and providing specialized medical care in Rhode Island.
When Dr. Alawieh returned to the United States on her valid H-1B visa, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers detained her at Boston Logan International Airport, cancelled her visa, and subjected her to expedited removal. Although she was able to file a habeas petition while in CBP custody and the district court even entered an interim order prohibiting her removal, the government still removed her. As one of only three transplant nephrologists in Rhode Island, Dr. Alawieh’s deportation not only upended her life but also deprived vulnerable patients of a physician providing life-saving care.
Because CBP removed Dr. Alawieh before the district court could meaningfully review the legality of the government’s actions, the district court dismissed her habeas petition as moot, reasoning that the writ is unavailable to someone who is no longer in custody.
Amicus Brief
The Council’s amicus brief provides real-world examples highlighting the harmful consequences of the lack of judicial review of unlawful expedited removal orders. It explains that expedited removal, originally created as a limited border-control tool for certain arriving individuals, has expanded significantly over time. As its use has broadened, particularly under this administration, more noncitizens–including those with meaningful ties to the country–have become subject to swift removal orders carrying severe consequences with little opportunity to challenge the government’s actions. The brief also discusses the importance of judicial review of expedited removal orders, as provided by Congress in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2), and argues that properly filed habeas petitions should not be mooted by a petitioner’s removal.
Because expedited removal can be carried out within hours or days, amici join Dr. Alawieh in arguing that treating physical removal as a basis for mooting habeas claims would allow the government to use the process’s rapid timeline to evade judicial scrutiny, in contravention of § 1252(e)(2).
Partners
The American Immigration Council was joined in this amicus brief by the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility (CLEAR), the National Immigration Project, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), and Van Der Hout LLP. Amici were represented by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.
